Greetings! I used to be an active SCA member, and I am regularly lurking here:PI started in the SCA in around 1978 and was an active member off and on until around 1992. I went to Pennsic XVI and beheld the glory that is a field battle with roughly a thousand people per side:PAlthough that said I preferred Shortsword & Shield, Shortsword & Axe, and Broadsword more than polearms,Although I did fight as part of an organized squad of 7 at one point: 1 left handed sword and board, 3 people using Spear and shield, a right hander using sword and board, and a polearmer behind us. Great fun.Long Live AnTir! and Long Live the Middle Kingdom!

Nahhh... I mean, I *like* swords, but back when I fought heavy, I got tired of rhino-hiders, so I switch to mace. I still have it by the door, though I need to rehab my shield.... It'd be better to defend the server room, too, with more clearance.

A grazing mace
How sweet the sound
That felled a wretch like theeThy helm is flat
That once was round
Thou'rt dead, that all may see

That's what I was thinking. Other than the Naginata, every single one of these options is from Diablo 2. Granted, they are also real polearms but it was suspicious. Will there be future polls for swords? Because honestly, that's where it's at.

Naginata is in D2X. Ranseur is not. (googled to double check, but oh so proud to know that trivia still...)

ok, polearms are formidable weapons, and their length makes it difficult to approach the wielder. I was wondering why anyone would choose a shorter sword when you could choose a polearm.

I think the answer is, when you have a sword, you can also have a shield. That makes it easier to block off the first few hits of the polearm while closing the distance, at which point the polearm bearer has no real defense against your sword. That is my understanding of the situation.

I was thinking that because of the weight of the metal, a halberd swung in a great enough arc might hit a shield with enough force to do some very serious damage to the shield and/or possibly the person's arm. I imagine anybody trained in using them would also be able to switch to a method closer to a quarterstaff to block/bludgeon as needed.

There must be SOME reason that swords were still favored in close combat. I'd assume if polearms were better, they would replace the sword for that purpose. We'd see polearm combat in the olympics instead of fencing. Which actually seems like a better idea, now that I think of it.

More boring than current Olympic fencing, you mean? That's hard to imagine. And I'm speaking as someone who fenced a bit in high school (so I'm more predisposed to find fencing interesting than the average American).

Last time around, IIRC, the fencing bouts weren't even televised in the US. The best I could find were some 8-second-long "highlight clips" of epee fencers grunting loudly. (When did epee fencers start this "grunting" affectation, anyway?).

I wish that someone would come up with a variant form of Western fencing that wasn't so dull to watch. You could, for example, change the rules so that the action doesn't stop every time a point is scored-- make it a bit more like boxing or MMA. (Yes, I know that would change the nature of the sport quite a lot).

You could, for example, change the rules so that the action doesn't stop every time a point is scored-- make it a bit more like boxing or MMA. (Yes, I know that would change the nature of the sport quite a lot).

Weight is the blessing and bane of the polearm. If it hits the weight of a polearm can be devastating. The problem occurs when one misses. Due to the weight it is difficult to stop a swing and reset for another swing. Also swinging such a heavy weapon takes a lot of room which leaves plenty of room for faster sword and board fighters to get by the swing and attack.

That is why many battles were fought with a line or two of polearms behind a line of sword and board. The polearms could thrust over, through and under the shields wall and be very effective in pinning an oncoming formation that could be hit in the rear of flank by cavalry. They were also very effective in stopping cavalry charges. Horses don't like charging into pointy things.

Polearms are great in massed formations but are vulnerable to archery. In one on one engagements the polearm is almost useless. I have seen someone with a sabre start 15 feet away from a target, take two steps and a lung and strike the target. A polearm would have a problem stopping that. Once one gets past the head the polearm is useless.

It's interesting that, as the middle ages went on, foot soldiers went from bearing a shield and one-handed sword or axe to pole arms like the above, then later, pikes [wikipedia.org]. Also swords went from the one-handed variety used with a shield to the two-handed sort [wikipedia.org]. All this happened after the longbow [wikipedia.org] and crossbow were introduced. Which seems counterintuitive to me because those would make me more inclined to have a shield to hide behind, not less.

Cavalry. Longbows were great, but they weren't some sort of a magical armor ignoring weapon. Good steel armor could stop most arrows, and a cavalry charge across good terrain could be pretty fast, not giving the archers the time to hit weak spots on their enemies. So you needed some way to stop that charge, and polearms were it - either defensive ones like pikes or offensive ones like halberds.And if you think about it longbows made armor MORE useful. They made it completely mandatory for nobles to pile on as much armor as possible, or they'd easily be killed. And so much heavy armor made 'short' weapons fairly weak - swords are not much good against plate + chainmail.

The English didn't train longbow men, they grew them. The English longbows were strong enough that most people would have to spend their formative years practicing in order to develop the muscle strength required to use them effectively. Some sources claim 150-200 pound draw weights, but more realistic sources say bows in the 100 to 120 pound draw weights were common.

15 times a minute? Heck, everyone I know - including world champions and a longbow world record holder - would struggle to shoot 15 arrows on a childs bow in a minute.

One every ten seconds, keeping four in the air at once.. That's manageable. Keeping it going for ten minutes? Sure, that's going to hurt; there's a reason bowmen had malformed bodies. But keep it going for a minute, take a breather for a minute or two, repeat over a half hour period. 60 arrows in half an hour? Just a few months practice and muscle development.

Of course, it's all somewhat daft. Some bloke isn't going to stand under 300 yards away being shot at. He's going to be up close and very personal within 40-50 seconds, by which time you've launched 5-6 arrows at best, and now you're throwing your bow at him and drawing your dagger.

I think it was because of better armor. Short (light) weapons had trouble damaging anyone wearing heavy armor. So it was better to go with a heavy weapon that will knock down your opponent even if it fails to penetrate his armor. After that the guy could be swarmed by guys with daggers. At the same time shields became less vital since armor head a reasonable chance of protecting against projectiles (or the projectiles were heavy enough that the shield couldn't help either). Combine all that with knights using lances, which you need a wall of polearms to stop.

You're close. The answer is simply that every melee weapon has a best range. If you're too far away, you can't reach, obviously. But if you're too close, the weapon is too unwieldly and can't be used effectively. Imagine trying to hit someone with a six foot spear when they're only six inches away. That is the superiority of the sword; if you can close in, the polearm user is helpless while you are effective. Have a shield to help avoid the polearm's attacks so you can close the distance can certainly be useful, but it is not essential--if you're quick, it can be possible to simply dodge the polearm's attacks. It all comes down to who can control the range of the engagement.

Having trained with spears, staves, and short swords, I would take a pole arm over the short swords, or any sword for that matter. Most pole arms wielders always had a knife or long dagger for close combat, and attacking someone with half a pole arm and a knife is just fine for getting in close over someone with a sword. Having a shield just gives someone with a hooked polearm more leverage for knocking an enemy off balance, and a shield doesn't really give much closing capability against a group of experienced spearmen. Swords are better for duels and standing off someone with a knife, which is why so many stories have swords in them- those stories were more about royalty and their uses of weapons, rather than that of some common fighter for whom a polearm could be easily converted from a set of farming implements over to a deadly weapon quite easily.

Economically, if I were a ruler or warlord trying to outfit a large army with hand to hand weapons, the spear or halberd would win over almost anything else, because metal is very expensive to mine and craft into reliable components. That crafting cost on a per unit basis goes way up with hardened metals, and the larger the piece, the greater chance that serious imperfections will be introduced. Most rulers during periods where they were dependent upon hand forged weapons always picked pole-arms over swords for these reasons. Also, a lot of these weapons would be dropped or lost during close combat, so you want to limit your losses, while allowing your people to be able to pick up a weapon they can all reliably understand. Most peasants at the time understood already how to use a long staff or spear to keep wildlife at bay, for hunting, or for use as levers or farming tools in general. Drilling them on how to learn a few more moves and keep their feet steady is a lot less time intensive than trying to come up with a completely new regimen for something like a sword.

Polearms are great in groups, where soldiers can support each other. But they aren't much good in a 1vs1 fight or when fighting without a formation. And any army of the period would also likely have archers/crossbowmen, which could easily kill you if you didn't have a shield.

Because of this:The name "goedendag" derives from Dutch, usually taken in English sources to have meant "good day",[2] with reference to the revolt of Bruges in 1302, at which the guildsmen of Bruges purportedly took over the city by greeting people in the streets, and murdering anyone who answered with a French accent. [emphasis mine]

If *I* had to kill a dragon, I think I'd have to go with something more like a TOW missile. Unless you subscribe to the notion that dragons are invariably supernatural creatures. In which case, I'd select an enchanted TOW missile.